✦ Karnataka High Court · 16 Nov 2011

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. SMT 1 NDUBAI ANNAPPA PATIL

Case Details Karnataka High Court · 16 Nov 2011
Court
Karnataka High Court
Decided
16 Nov 2011
Length
1,409 words

Summary

A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.

Precedent status

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

Original judgment text

Judgment

1 . . 0 D C < ? . o . ‘ 0 r . , 1 r D C . o 0 : t - ( 1 1 i D C C D D C 1 Q . ) T D D C 3 r — C ) l C r C D C I < a g P ( D C l f $ z S e a a D C a n r n r D C D C D C a a n w D C S I - i i I D C D C a n I < ‘ D C D C n Z D C m D C a ‘ ° D C a t 0 f - f D b s Q a 0 — D C a a a D C q q D C . I W ; I rejected by the learned Member of ,he Tribunal, so pray for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Further, th.e iea.rned Advocate for the claimant places reliance on M,/SORlENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED VS. SMT. S.ALMA JND OTHERS reported in ILR 2008 IR 1249 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that a claim application under Section 163A is maintainable even when the. negligence is on the par..t of the victim, So also, place reliance on NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SUNIL AND ANOTHER reported in 2007 ACJ 278 wh.erein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that a claim apt. lication under Section 163A is maintair able even \vere there j5 nealicence on the part of the victim, 8, m The material submissions would arobabiize S P ‘1c r c c D C D I D I c a H > H H D C D I t r D C i t t r t . • C S c L C . D C D I C C D I 4 D I H D C . 4 9 4 9 r f r f - r r - i — D C . ) C H t r $ I D C - 1 c — , c n e r D C D I D I D I r f t C — I r c D I H D C D I - D . I C C D I . D C n — D C C C L C D I D I . — C C L C D C D I D I H D D I I C C c - , n n i J S r f t r H D C H r D I t C ) C — p D C D I i - D I 2 D C D I t r D C C C D I D D I I D C D C — > ç — . ) ( $ ç H t r D C D I n r — U L N $ D C C ) C D I 1 a D C t r D C L C H + r H D C ‘ - < ) C c D D I I . 4 9 — . - r f * r H D I — D C . — C C H H D C C C D C D I c H n e r . — t r p - . , _ $ C C D C H . . t r “ H D I C C J c S H C C ) — D C o D = D C D C L C > H n e D C a — g D I > H n e a L C D C D C n e D C C I ( — C C D C e — - D C ! ! D D I I D C D C $ C C H H D I C C J p L C D C D C — 4 9 H D C D I D D I I ) C ( H > C C 2 D C , — C C 3 2 D I n e — - D C > ) ( D C H — ( - r f 2 P D C D C c 9 P H D D I I H D C . c L , C H — D C H t a f $ C C D C H H D C H Z D I : t C H D I D D I I H $ D C v 9 D I H H t D C C C C 2 r D I D I H H H D C 4 9 : 4 9 D C D C D C a c d l I - U — 4 - 1 _ _ _ _

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments